ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Performance of artificial intelligence chatbots in the diagnosis and management of simulated dental trauma cases: an evaluation based on IADT guidelines.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Language-dependent performance variation in large language models for dental trauma management: a comparative evaluation of ChatGPT-5.2, Gemini 3.0, and Claude 4.5 Sonnet.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Assessment of various artificial intelligence applications' performance in responding to multiple-choice endodontics questions.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- ChatGPT in Pediatric Dental Trauma: A Cross-Sectional Assessment of Response Reliability to Parental Queries.Cureus · 2026Article
- Comparative performance of large language models for patient-oriented support in dental trauma emergencies.BMC oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aims to comparatively evaluate the performance of four different artificial intelligence-based chatbots (ChatGPT-4o (Free), ChatGPT-5 (Plus), DeepSeek, and Google Gemini) in the diagnosis and treatment processes of dental trauma cases. MATERIAL AND
methodsBased on the International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) guidelines, eleven fictional cases were developed, each representing different diagnostic possibilities of dental trauma. The cases cenarios were based on a standardized dataset including clinical examination, radiographic findings, and pulp sensitivity tests. All AI models were tested for three days for each case. Two researchers analyzed the responses using ablinding method according to five evaluation criteria (diagnostic accuracy, treatment plan appropriateness, splinting duration accuracy, antibiotic indication, and reference accuracy).
resultsAccording to the results, while no significant difference was found in terms of diagnostic accuracy (p > 0.05), Google Gemini showed the highest performance with 100% accuracy. ChatGPT-4o (Free) stood out with a 97% accuracy rate in antibiotic indication, while in splinting duration prediction, ChatGPT-5 (Plus) was the most successful model with 75.8%. DeepSeek exhibited the highest variability (p < 0.05).
conclusionsThe findings show that AI chatbots have promising potential as complementary tools in dental trauma diagnosis, but evidence-based validation, expert supervision, and methodological standards are needed for safe use in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41432988What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.